Executive Summary More than 3 million miles of electrical cables are strung overhead across the country. Add to that at least 180 million telephone and cable TV lines, and it’s no wonder hurricanes, tornadoes, fires and ice storms are wreaking havoc on America's electrical systems each year, causing utility outages that last days, weeks and longer. Power outages over extended periods present major health and safety concerns and economic losses. In the aftermath of these storms, there is invariably an outcry from the public, the government and the media to place overhead utilities underground. Concerns about the reliability of overhead lines, increases in their maintenance and operating costs, and issues of public safety and quality-of-life are leading more and more utilities and municipalities to the realization that converting overhead distribution lines to underground is the best way to provide high-quality service to their customers. According to a report by the Edison Electric Institute, “almost 70 percent of the nation’s distribution system has been built with overhead power lines.” Over the past 15 years or so, however, “approximately half the capital expenditures by U.S. investor-owned utilities for new transmission and distribution wires have been for underground wires.” Making such a conversion is rarely justified solely on the basis of costs. For utility companies, undergrounding provides potential benefits through reduced operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, reduced tree trimming costs, less storm damage, reduced loss of day-to-day electricity sales, and reduced losses of electricity sales when customers lose power after storms. Creative funding options are often available to make the goal of undergrounding a reality. For some conversions, the evolution of horizontal directional drilling and the ability to physically locate underground utilities using vacuum have been key to the success of many of these projects. The Situation The headlines are everywhere. In September 2008, heavy winds in Ohio caused an outage which deprived approximately 2.6 million customers of power. In December 2008, ice storms in the northeast cut power to millions of customers. Overhead power lines have caused devastating fires in San Diego County. In addition to the utility’s restoration costs, social costs of outages include lost revenue and other business disruptions, public safety and security, and convenience. As so-called 100-year storms and events happen with frightening regularity, forecasters anticipate that increased hurricane activity will continue to occur in some regions and extended drought conditions will continue in others, causing significant impact to utilities, primarily in the Gulf, Atlantic and Pacific coastal areas.

According to Michael Beehler, associate vice president of Burns and McDonnell and moderator of the utility industry’s 2009 DistribuTech conference held in San Diego, “the total restoration costs for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, Gustav, and Ike totaled approximately $2 billion. Some power lines were downed during both Hurricane Rita in 2005 and Hurricane Ike in 2008. We rebuilt the system and then we rebuilt it again.” In September 2003, Hurricane Juan, one of the most damaging hurricanes to impact Canada, made landfall in Nova Scotia, resulting in more than $24 million in damage to Halifax Regional Municipality infrastructure and property. In addition, Nova Scotia Power Inc. (NSPI) incurred costs of $12.6 million as a result of the storm or approximately 11% of earnings that year. In just the next 14 months, Nova Scotia was struck by two more storms resulting in above-average power outages and substantial power infrastructure repair costs. The majority of the outages resulted from downed power transmission and distribution lines due to high winds, fallen trees and branches, ice and snow. Sample of Electric Outages Caused by Severe Storms: 1996-2005 (Not inclusive of all storms) Storm Event Utility Date Customers

Impacted Outage Duration (Days)

Hurricanes Katrina & Rita

Entergy 2005 832,000 Power never restored for some in New Orleans

Hurricane Wilma Florida Power & Light

2005 3,200,000 18

Hurricane Francis

Florida Power & Light

2004 2,800,000 12

Hurricane Isabel Dominion, VA Power BGE

2003 2003

1,800,000 790,000

14 8

Ice Storm Kentucky Utilities 2003 146,000 8 Ice Storm Duke

Carolina Power

2002 2002

1,375,000 561,000

9 8

Ice Storm KCPL 2002 305,000 10 Snowstorm

Carolina Power 2000 173,000 5

Hurricane Floyd

Virginia Power Carolina Power BGE

1999 1999 1999

800,000 537,000 500,000

5 6 8

Ice Storm

Pepco BGE

1999 1999

213,000 360,000

5 5

Ice Storm

Central Maine Power

1998 250,000 21

Ice Storm

Virginia Power 1998 401,000 10

Hurricane Fran

Virginia Power 1996 1996

415,000 450,000

6 9

Ice Storm Duke Carolina Power

1996 1996

650,000 790,000

8 10

Source: Press Accounts of Storms

Table used in A Study on the Costs and Benefits of Undergrounding Power Lines. Prepared for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Add to that the aging conditions of overhead lines and poles, the encroachment of overgrown trees, aesthetic considerations and public safety concerns – such as vehicle/utility pole accidents which result in approximately 1,000 fatalities every year, and live-wire contact injuries – and it’s no wonder utilities are converting overhead distribution lines, and eventually transmission lines to underground. Success - Edmond Electric Taking an incremental, section-by-section approach to conversion has proven to be a win-win for many utilities and municipalities, including municipally-owned Edmond Electric, (Oklahoma). A case study, published by Dean Sherrick, distribution superintendent, describes Edmond as a ‘bedroom community’ of Oklahoma City where residents appreciate their trees and quality of life. Citizens wanted to be rid of their lines and poles, in part because of aesthetics, and in part because Edmond is located in “tornado alley”. The community is also prone to ice storms. According to Sherrick, who oversaw the community’s overhead to underground conversion, “Given the aging condition of some of our 96-year-old company's poles and facilities, our utility first identified areas already in need of repair and upgrade. By starting with an area that needed attention, some of the conversion expense could be absorbed in annual maintenance and upgrade costs already budgeted.” First project completed was Henderson Hills, converting nearly 500 residents to buried electric cable in conduit. The next project targets a similarly sized neighborhood where outages have been high and older equipment needs replacement and repairs.” Sherrick credits horizontal directional drilling (HDD) with reducing installation and restoration costs, and minimizing disruptions to the community, traffic problems and recurring sinking caused associated with open trenches, setting a precedent for future projects. Their city council approved a revised budget line item for overhead to underground conversion covering five years. Project Power On (Undergrounding) – AmerenUE AmerenUE, which serves customers in Missouri, is undergoing a $300 million core reliability program, designed to better protect its delivery system against the forces of nature. This effort includes substantial underground cabling in areas where undergrounding is feasible to improve reliability. The project planning, design, and construction represent a major collaborative effort between UE, county and municipal governments, the region’s contracting industry and UE customers. UE also has identified some “must-do” undergrounding projects that supersede the local government

engagement process. In all cases, the upgrades will be designed to improve reliability, not just the cosmetic appearance of the system. The undergrounding projects could include high- or low-voltage overhead lines and may include service conductors physically attached to customer residences and/or businesses. In some cases, small portions of overhead circuitry may be reconstructed or relocated before they are placed underground. The project is part of a $1 billion initiative to improve reliability and protect the environment. Potential Benefits of Underground Electric Facilities Advantages of underground lines include aesthetics, higher public acceptance, perceived benefits of protection against electromagnetic field radiation (which is still present in underground lines), fewer interruptions, and lower maintenance costs. Failure rates of overhead lines and underground cables vary widely, but typically underground cable outage rates are about half of their equivalent overhead line types. Potentially far fewer momentary interruptions occur from lightning, animals and tree branches falling on wires which de-energize a circuit and then re-energize it a moment later. Primary benefits most often cited can be divided into four areas: Potentially-Reduced Maintenance And Operating Costs

• Lower storm restoration cost • Lower tree-trimming cost

Improved Reliability

• Increased reliability during severe weather (wind-related storm damage will be greatly reduced for an underground system, and areas not subjected to flooding and storm surges experience minimal damage and interruption of electric service.

• Less damage during severe weather • Far fewer momentary interruptions • Improved utility relations regarding tree trimming

Improved Public Safety

• Fewer motor vehicle accidents • Reduced live-wire contact injuries • Fewer Fires

Improved Property Values

• Improved aesthetics (removal of unsightly poles and wires, enhanced tree canopies)

• Fewer structures impacting sidewalks

Tangible Savings The following chart, which summarizes the total benefits that the Virginia State Corporation Commission calculated Virginia utilities might realize if the state’s entire electric distribution system were placed underground, shows tangible metrics for projecting savings to utilities. It shows an annual projected savings of approximately $104 million. Cost Saving Item: $/Year Operations & Maintenance no savings Tree Trimming $ 50,000,000 "Hundred-Year" Post Storm Rebuild $ 40,000,000 Reduction in Day-to-Day Lost Electricity Sales $ 12,000,000

Elimination of Lost Electricity Sales From "Hundred-Year" Storms

$ 2,000,000

Total $ 104,000,000 Source: Virginia State Corporation Commission, January 2005, “Placement of Utility Distribution Lines Underground” Societal Benefits The following summarizes some of the societal benefits, including enhanced electric reliability to the economy, reduced economic losses to customers due to fewer power outages after major storms, and reduced injuries and deaths from automobiles striking utility poles. Cost Saving Item: $/Year Avoided Impact of Day-to-Day Outages $ 3,440,000,000 Avoided Impact of "100-Year" Storm Outages $ 230,000,000 Avoided Impact of Motor Vehicle Accidents $ 150,000,000 Total $ 3,820,000,000 Reports indicate nine out of 10 new subdivisions bury power lines. Some of the cities which have already developed comprehensive plans to bury or relocate utility lines to improve aesthetics, include:

• Colorado Springs, Colorado • New Castle, Delaware • Frederick, Maryland • Saratoga Springs, New York • San Antonio, Texas • Williamsburg, Virginia • Tacoma, Washington

Utilities vary in how they charge for providing underground service to new residential construction. Some samples of residential undergrounding requirements are illustrated in the following: Utility State Requirement SDG&E, PGE & SCE CA Customer/Developer pays for

trenching & backfilling. Utility pays remaining costs.

Atlantic City Electric NJ Customer/Developer pays $802.74 + $4.35 per front foot for each home. Utility pays remaining costs.

Cobb Electric Membership Corp. GA Customer/developer pays $260 per customer. Utility pays remaining costs.

Green Mountain Power VT Customer/Developer pays for trenching & backfilling. Utility pays remaining costs.

Nantucket Electric Co. MA The utility pays up to $837.85. The customer pays the remaining costs.

Consolidated Edison NY The utility charges the customer the differential in charges for equivalent overhead construction

Mississippi Power MS Developer pays the cost differential above what it would cost to install overhead lines

Source: "Utility Undergrounding Programs", Scientech, May, 2001 In addition, creative funding options are being implemented using special assessment areas, undergrounding districts, and state and local government initiatives. For example, according to a Florida Power & Light press release, in January 2006, the company announced that subject to Public Service Commission approval, it intended to “pay for 25 percent of the cost of converting overhead lines to underground for local government-sponsored conversions. Florida Power & Light is hoping its actions will encourage local governments to take the necessary steps to invest in undergrounding.” South Carolina Electric & Gas has established a special undergrounding program, approved by the South Carolina Public Service Commission. Under the program, if the local municipality agrees to contribute a matching amount, SCE&G contributes 0.5 percent of the gross receipts it is obligated to pay to the municipality. This money goes into a special undergrounding fund. Progress Energy has included a provision in its line extension policy where, upon request, it will convert overhead facilities to underground without charge in a downtown commercial area, provided the area has sufficient density. The municipality must agree to receive underground street lighting service and satisfy certain other requirements

The City of Boulder, Colorado assists individuals or groups of property owners with undergrounding existing utilities adjacent to their property through the Xcel Energy Undergrounding Credit. Xcel is required to make one percent of the preceding year’s electric revenues available each year for undergrounding electric distribution lines in public places. Program participants pay 50 percent of undergrounding costs up to $100,000, and 100 percent of program costs in excess of $100,000. Conclusion After decades of discussion, municipalities and electric utilities are discovering that the many real and societal advantages to undergrounding power lines go far beyond just avoiding infrastructure damage from storm events such as hurricanes and ice storms. In fact, cost benefits accrue from reducing day-to-day maintenance and operating costs, improving reliability, enhancing public safety and improving aesthetics and property values. In many areas of the country, public policies are being developed which consider some form of cost-sharing for undergrounding, as governmental agencies learn more about the benefits which accrue to themselves and to utilities, developers, homeowners, businesses, communities and other rate payers, as a result of undergrounding. Converting overhead facilities fits with many utilities’ goals of providing high-quality electric service to its customers. Evolving technology, such as horizontal directional drilling, and the ability to more safely physically locate underground utilities which are already underground, are resulting in higher-than-expected production, setting a precedent for projects to come. Underground 2020 27149 Hwy. 33 Okahumpka, FL 34762 352-303-0901 www.underground2020.org © 2009 Underground 2020

Bibliography InfraSource Undergrounding Assessment Phase 1 Final Report. Emera. 2003. Emera Reports Third Quarter Earnings of $11.5 Million: $4.0 Earnings Impact from Hurricane Juan. Halifax Regional Municipality. 2004. District 13 Newsletter, Winter 2004. Johnson, B.W. 2006. Out of Sight, Out of Mind? A Study on the Costs and Benefits of Undergrounding Power Lines. Prepared for the Edison Electric Institute (EEI). Kinectrics. 2005. Underground Utilities Feasibility Study for Halifax Regional Municipality. Report #: 10986-001-RA-001-R01. Maney, C T. 2006. Benefits of Urban Underground Power Delivery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, Spring 1996. Navigant Consulting, “A Review of Electric Utility Undergrounding Policies and Practices,” March 2005. “Overhead to Underground Conversion in Oklahoma,” Transmission and Distribution World, Penton Media, August 2004. Putting Cables Underground Working Group. 1998. Putting Cables Underground. Report of the Putting Cables Underground Working Group to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Australia. Sinclair Knight Merz. 1998. Consultancy to Investigate Potential Benefits From Putting Cables Underground. A study completed in support of the Putting Cables Underground Working Group. Australia. “The Real Cost of Overhead vs. Underground Transmission: It May Not Be What You Think” panel: moderated by Michael Beehler, associate vice president of Burns and McDonnell. Panelists Pacific Gas & Electric Senior Consulting Engineer Mohan Bhatia, American Electric Power Director Of Transmission Line Projects Engineering Max Chau, and Northeast Utilities System Transmission Project Director Anne Bartosewicz. “Utility Undergrounding Programs,” Scientech, May 2001. Virginia State Corporation Commission. 2005. Placement of Utility Distribution Lines Underground. Report to the Governor and the General Assembly of Virginia.